I hate professional critics of any form of art and entertainment. Most of them lack any talent to make their own art. Instead they resort to being critics to feel superior to those who can actually create something.

"I hate professional critics of any form of art and entertainment. Most of them lack any talent to make their own art. Instead they resort to being critics to feel superior to those who can actually create something."

That is painting a really broad brush on critics, this may be the case for some. Did you ever think they simply want to express there own opinion ?

"I hate professional critics of any form of art and entertainment. Most of them lack any talent to make their own art. Instead they resort to being critics to feel superior to those who can actually create something."

-- Romero, I think you're confusing critics with reviewers. Critics try to put art into a cultural or temporal context (among other things). Criticism is itself an art. Look at H.L. Goddamn Mencken. Sarah Vowell has written some great criticism, and so has Gore Vidal.

Reviewers, on the other had, are retards and assholes. If you don't know if you're reading a criticism or a review, ask yourself: "Is this writer an asshole?" If the answer is yes, you've probably got yourself a reviewer.

I love how the hooves became hands as he desperately scrambled for the cliff, and then when he gives in to his fate and takes the dive.

I think criticism is a good thing. Even if it's lousy criticism. It pushes artists to continue to perfect and prove dissenters wrong. Of course, there are plenty artists who really aren't that good no matter what but that's another can of worms. ^_^

Oscar Wilde stated 'criticism is the highest form of art.' This is a quote from a person who wrote maybe...two noteworthy works of literature. Truly great artists don't have time to be overly critical...they are too overwhelmed with creative projects.

More professionals and even bloggers should follow that advice. Reviewers with insight are few and far between. They just use bigger words to tell you what they like and don't like, based on the same criteria they use to select ice cream flavors. Since I don't know them personally and have not the same predilections, they are of less value than my friends, who don't pose as experts.

I have always just loved this sequence. All those flailing limbs and EXTREME PANIC... This is the old walking off a cliff gag done right. I often wondered if it's the inspiration for Basil Wolverton and other big, demented grin type-artists.

I also think it illustrates how Clampett puts you in the cartoon more than other directors. What other directors would make you FEEL and IDENTIFY with the horse's EXCITEMENT as he panics? Would another director sustain such raw panic for several seconds?

Nobody can do a dim-bulb character like Clampett. He can draw a head that just SCREAMS stupid. Compare them to poor, simple Egghead. Clampett basically takes Mortimer Snerd and wraps his face around a light bulb. This guy is one of the weaker of Clampett's dummies by design. I like the one-brain cell- ones the best. This guy has at least 2 or 3.

perhaps this is old news there but i saw the other thay something that made me wanna kick my self in the nuts and just cry, it was so horrible!! shit! looney tune LOONATIC......WHAT THe FUCK WAS THAT??bugs "as" bunny??? it's like a total denial of the looney tunes past, they're trying to kill them! all re designed with an animeish style. i just couldn't keep repeting my self "WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT??

The fact is, nobody's opinion is better than anybody else's. Different people have different tastes. It's people being taste pushers that's a problem.

I've watched "Buckaroo Bugs" plenty of times, and sure, there's some great and funny animation, but I still think it lays an egg. I think that short on its own is a gross misunderstanding of Bugs.

But did Bob misunderstand Bugs all the time? Hell, no. "Bugs Bunny Gets the Boid", "Tortoise Wins By a Hare", "Old Gray Hare", and "The Big Snooze" are some of the best characterizations of him ever.

BTW, I actually do like the other Clampett Bugs that always gets blasted, "Hare Ribbin'". Maybe it's because instead of Bugs being up against a plain moron, it's an insane moron who'll bite Bugs in half if given the chance, giving him more of a challenge to defeat.

It certainly isn't going to be as informed as the opinions of professionals."

I realize used the wrong word,not opinion but what a critic dose, criticism. Critics don't merely tell us what's good and what's bad, they tell us why it's good and why it's bad. They break down and analyze, they don't merely look .

When Bugs totures some hunter,etc., he dose it because he was wronged first. Bugs attacking Red Hot Rider was pretty much for no reason,this is a characterization of a villian and Bugs is not a villian.

P.C. Unfunny pretty much nailed it. I think Bugs is a jerk in it. Bugs isn't a jerk character, so when he comes off as one, it's not a very good short. I feel the same about Daffy in his later cartoons.

I prefer to think that Clampett broke rules about Bugs, and when he did, somebody later accused him of misunderstanding or misusing Bugs. I read somewhere about FALLING HARE that Clampett made Bugs the fall-guy inappropriately.

I had the unique experience of growing up with a human being who was as close to a real incarnation of Bugs Bunny as you might ever find --and yeah, he fucked with people just because they were dummies, and I am guilty of laughing really hard at it. Is this cartoon on DVD?

>>I should have clarified - If you're basing an opinion on something you haven't seen/watched/read, then your opinion is worse than anyone else's.<<

I'll add a couple:

If you are basing your opinion on one you read in an animation history book-like "Friz was good at music and timing" or "Disney did personality animation" rather than coming to the conclusion on your own just by watching the flims themselves then it's not even an opinion, it's merely blind dogma.

Or having an opinion when you're still a teenager. That's automatic disqualification.

The horse in "Buckaroo Bugs" was pretty cool looking. I havent seen "Buckaroo Bugs" in ages. I don't know who animated the horse but I think Bugs was animated by McKimson in that scene. I also love the scene where Red Hot Rider thinks he's rideing the hores but he's not and the horse punches him and glues him to the sattle. Was that cartoon your or Bob Camp's influence to make the Ren & Stimpy cartoon "Out West"? Also, How did you come up with the character Mr. Horse and came up with his personality? Mr. Horse is a cool R & S character. "Yes sir I like him"

All opinions are not created equal. Some are based on specific criteria and extensive experience, and others are based on personal tastes and limited experience.

There's absolutely no point discussing personal tastes... everybody likes different things. But if you define your criteria for judging something and explain how you're applying that criteria, others can learn from your opinion, whether their criteria are the same or not.

I can tell you from personal experience that there are a LOT of cartoons to watch before you have a rounded knowledge of the way things worked in the golden age of animation. Only a fraction of the cartoons you need to see are available on home video. It takes a lot of legwork.

When I was in college, I devoured animation. My VCR ran on every cartoon show... Tom & Jerry, Bugs Bunny, Popeye, Underdog, Rocky & Bullwinkle, everything. I watched it all... the good, the bad and the ugly. Just when I thought I had seen it all, something I hadn't seen before would crop up.

Then I started working in the animation business. This opened up a whole new form of understanding. Talking with some of the giants in the history of animation opened up more windows on the subject. It took over a decade of serious study for me to form opinions that had any sort of validity at all. And even saying that, I defer to those who are animators. They have a whole level of understanding of the subject that I'll never have.

The internet is full of "experts". By the screen name alone, you can't tell if you're chatting with a 16 year old kid or one of the "nine old men". The average person who posts to chat boards isn't interested in reading... he's more interested in talking, whether he has something useful to say or not. The few who really know about the subject stand out clearly from the ones who are just bluffing by making stuff up or regurgitating stuff they've read in books. People in the animation business stand out of the crowd. It's their business to know.

Every forum has its share of know-nothing know-it-alls and the few who actually do know. The difference between the various forums and chat boards is that some encourage vigorous, yet respectful debate, and others degenerate quickly into personal insults that have nothing to do with the subject being discussed. I don't waste my time with the latter... Heck, even saying that provoked a round of personal insults last week.

When I was lucky enough to be able to spend time speaking with Grim Natwick and Art Babbitt, I listened carefully, I allowed them to make their points and I asked questions that helped me understand what they were saying. I was more interested in their opinions than my own. I wish I had known Bob Clampett. From listening to what John and Milt and Eddie, I can know him better, because they *did* know him.

Twenty years from now, some of you are going to remember what a great thing it was to be able to learn from John through this blog. Others of you are going to kick yourself for wasting such a great opportunity.

I don't remember Buckaroo Bugs correctly but I don't reming Bugs being the villain. I actually don't think there's such a thing as a "misunderstanding of Bugs". The guys at Warner Bros WERE Bugs altogether and I think every director did a good job with him.

However I think that Friz Freleng kind of ruined Tweety and that Daffy Duck could have been more interesting would he have kept some of his early looney behaviour.

Anyway, yeah, that's a pretty good scene. However this is not one of my fave Clampett shorts, just because I prefer the most surreal ones like Piggy Bank Robbery, Baby Bottleneck, Gruesome Twosome, Book Review or Kitty Kornered. Those are probably the greatest bunch of cartoons I have ever watched.

And critics are ok, I guess...some of them are at least. But obviously their opinion is not valid if they don't know about the subject. Sometimes movie reviewers write a critic about animation movies. Well, they know something about pacing, staging, dialogues, etc. but in some reviews you can tell the guy haven't watched any other cartoon in his life. That makes their opinion not-too-valid for me, and I usually got mad when they overrate an animated movie that is not so good. But some of the audience who doesn't know much about cartoons would do that too. So, in general, we're doomed. Or we can accept cartoons, compared to videogames or real life movies, are not the most popular form of entertainment.

"Twenty years from now, some of you are going to remember what a great thing it was to be able to learn from John through this blog. Others of you are going to kick yourself for wasting such a great opportunity."

I'll admit that I have learned things on this blog that I wouldn't find anywhere else. Though I disagree with somethings that John says, this a very informative blog.

In my opinion Bugs Bunny is a jerk in almost all of his cartoons. Not a jerk in the same way that Daffy Duck later became. Daffy was insecure, greedy, and irritable. Bugs welcomes confrontation. He lives for it. To me it was never "Oh, the poor bunny is getting chased by the mean hunter!"

I think Bug's personality makes for a great villian. He knows he's vastly more intelligent than whoever is pursuing him and takes great pleasure in using that to frustrate and even physically harm them! He even goes as far as to fake his own death to play with their emmotions. At any point while he's being chased, do you think he's not thouroughly enjoying it? He's a thrill seeker. It only makes sense that he would rob shit for kicks.

He is indeed a force to e reckoned with. That's not to say that he's completely evil and unlikeable. To me, most cool people are at least 10 percent asshole.

My statement may have been broad, but it's how I feel about people who think they are experts on something they cannot even do. That's why the opinion of someone who's an artist, musician, film maker, etc weighs more in my mind than someone who's basically a fan boy.

Man, way to generalize people. All opinions are created equal, and critics can publish them and speak them, and people can read and discuss them. Either all opinions are useless or none of them are.

That said, this cartoon, along with so many of Clampett's Bugs cartoons, had Bugs Bunny as the jerk, which is why it was so fun to watch him be hurt rather than Jones' Bugs of Freleng's Bugs. His cartoons were good, but if discussing the philosophy of Bugs, most of his cartoons can be served to show what Bugs WAS before he became an iconic figure of victory, the icon for the little guy. They're good cartoons... just not a very good rabbit.

Yeah, speaking of teenage opinions, COME ON! So many of today's modern teenagers are as smart or smarter than the modern adult. They read independently, they experiment. One should never underestimate the youth. It was the youth behind every revolution, and the star of your blog [Clampett] was 17 when he started out! 17!!! Come on people!

"f you are basing your opinion on one you read in an animation history book-like "Friz was good at music and timing" or "Disney did personality animation" rather than coming to the conclusion on your own just by watching the flims themselves then it's not even an opinion, it's merely blind dogma."

Do you really believe that anyone wrote their opinions on cartoons or directors without having watched the films--that they were repeating stuff from a book? You might be overestimating the literacy of today's cartoon fans. ; )

I know you disagree with the people who like Freleng's best cartoons and it's been done to death, etc, but the comments I read pro-Friz were all specific, with examples aplenty. I don't remember one person who said anything like "Maltin said this, so there!" Not one. You're right, though--people should form their own opinions, based on what they see--and they should try and see everything. And make up their minds for themselves.

Freleng's gags were all in the timing btw. A cat crashing into the wall is not funny, but at a certain point in his emotional spectrum it absolutely is. Much like Jones had the cleverest gags and Clampett the funniest animation.

"Twenty years from now, some of you are going to remember what a great thing it was to be able to learn from John through this blog. Others of you are going to kick yourself for wasting such a great opportunity.

See yaSteve"

What exactly do you mean by that? How would one "learn from John through this blog" rather than "wasting such a great opportunity"?

By the way John, you should be nice to kids, especially the ones who are seeking out obscurities for the better of the community. Who else is going to carry the Clampett Clan torch when you're long gone?

I don't remember one person who said anything like "Maltin said this, so there!" Not one.

Then why, if you ask the average "fan" what the best cartoons are, does he inevitably mention the exact same titles Leonard Maltin cited in "Of Mice and Magic"?

That's the best book on animation history, but it was written before the era of home video. We have a tremendous advantage over Leonard Maltin in 1979... we can watch the films at our leisure on our TVs. We can organize them to view them in chronological order by director... We should know better now, right?

So why do people keep saying that all Terrytoons look alike and that the Three Little Pigs was a breakthrough in personality animation? Why is Chuck Jones' most popular film "What's Opera Doc?" when that's clearly not one of his best films?

I worked on Cool World with an old time animator named George Bakes. He had a Yogi Bear style Brooklyn accent, and I vividly remember him hollering in the hallway, "What's wid dese kids nowadays? They think they know everything becuz dey READ IT IN A BOOK! ...I knew Bill Tytla! I knew Jim Tyer! I knew Milt Kahl! And dey try to tell ME da score?! Sheesh!"

Books are great resources. But you've got to use your brain and watch the films too.

What exactly do you mean by that? How would one "learn from John through this blog" rather than "wasting such a great opportunity"?

You do what I did with Art Babbit and Grim Natwick. You listen very carefully. You try to understand what he's saying. You ask questions to clarify things you don't understand. You pump him for all the information he'll give you, and let him know you appreciate the time he's devoting to you. Then you take that experience and process it by watching the films he talks about in the context of his comments. You do whatever research you need to do to be able to put what he's taught you to practical use.

Or...

You can snipe through anonymous comments, disagree with him before you've even experienced a tiny fraction of what he's experienced, and disrespect a guy who is not only one of the most influential animators today, he knows the history of his medium as well as any film historian you can name. The postings on this blog provide ample proof of that.

I'd say Manny Gould as well. I'm not saying it with 100% certainty, but if we set up a betting pool right here I'd be putting $50 on Manny.

About Buckaroo Bugs, I like the way the story plays out but I think it would have been a much better cartoon if Bugs wasn't the star. This scenario really does not suit Bugs' schtick. Bugs is best with an adversary that poses some kind of a physical threat. But, since Red Hot Ryder is so stupid that Elmer Fudd could outsmart him, there's not much for Bugs to fight against. This cartoon might have worked better if say a generic wise-guy rodent like a prarie-dog or something was used instead of Bugs. It would have made the jerky personality much easier to swallow.

Oh, for those who think I just "sounded like a critic" back there, there's plenty of my own artwork on my blog as well as a link to my animated student film on the Zed website (search the February archives for that one). Feel free to check all that out and see if I'm qualified to have a valid opinion or not.

I find it amazing that Clampett was only 17 when he started making cartoons. I turn 21 on July 7'th and I wish I was making cartoon films today! I still draw the cartoon characters that I created on sketch pads. Four months ago I did a storyboard for a cartoon short I wanted to make. I started it at a High School I use to go to. I drew all the (test) layouts and scanned them on the computer. I am now in the middle of coloring the scanned drawings. Before I do the real animation I am starting off with a colored animatic with the voice over recording. I will be doing the voices in this film. I can't wait to get the real film done. I still need to get an animation board. I don't know if I need to build or buy one. I wanted to make my own cartoons ever since I first saw Ren & Stimpy in 1992 or 1993. I'm also influenced by Tex Avery & Bob Clampett. I am happy that John is giving us more information about animation then a crappy collage. I wanna make funny, gag filled, violent, gross-out and edgy cartoon films. Just like my hero, John K.

"All opinions are not created equal. Some are based on specific criteria and extensive experience, and others are based on personal tastes and limited experience.

There's absolutely no point discussing personal tastes... everybody likes different things. But if you define your criteria for judging something and explain how you're applying that criteria, others can learn from your opinion, whether their criteria are the same or not."

An animator's statement that a given piece of animation is effective at something (that something being properly technical) should be given weight; the statement by a person who's watched more animation than anyone else that a given piece of animation is one of the most effective at something should be given weight. But the opinion of neither of those people is more valid than the opinion of anyone else in non-technical value judgements.

Personal taste (aka value judgement) is at the heart of discussing what is or is not good outside of purely technical discourse (even in technical discourse, value judgment is often involved; otherwise, all cartoons of similar budgets would be far more similar looking than they are). Discussion is often an important part of understanding why various personal tastes are what they are. Expressing an opinion can be the beginning of expressing a well thought out opinion. And here, expressing opinions that come down to pure taste on very short passages of cartoons (such as, "that looked good", or "that was unpleasant to watch") can help people to explain specific aspects of larger cartoons that they liked, that they might just have said "I liked that cartoon". Encouraging people with simple opinions to express them encourages them to think more specifically about those opinions. And those lay people are not saddled with the curse of the technicians: technical understanding.

From the discussions of cartoonists I've seen, it seems to me that they by and large have forgotten what it is like to watch a cartoon as a lay person; or perhaps it is that the people who become cartoonists are simply wired differently than most other people in their perceptions/aesthetics. Cartoonists watch frame by frame. One gag at a time. Lay people do not; lay people watch cartoons 5/10/22 minutes at a time. For cartoonists making cartoons for cartoonists without a need to appeal to a lay audience, lay people's opinions are irrelevant. But if they want to (or need to) intentionally appeal to lay people, the people who are the overwhelming bulk of the potential audience, they have no choice but to listen to lay people's value judgments.

Encouraging people to view cartoons closely is in the interests of John K., is it not? It's certainly not in the interests of an audience to simply accept another person's value judgment as to what is or is not good; wasn't that kind of the situation that led to the doldrums of the '70s and early '80s? Isn't blind acceptance of inferior product what John finds to be problematic now? Why should the audience accept John's value judgment as to what is an appealing cartoon any more than they should accept what some writer or some money man has to say about it? All three of those positions (cartoonist, writer, producer) are equally inappropriate to surrender your own tastes to.

I would suggest some people are willing to accept his opinions as a proxy for their own opinions because John made cartoons those people really enjoyed. That, however, is a dangerous proposition. I find I generally have mixed feelings about anyone's body of work (assuming it isn't extremely small). Some things succeed for my personal aesthetics, some things fail. To punt on one's own opinions is giving up choice, it gives up self determination.

Now, when people say, for instance, they like South Park better than something else, there is much shouting. That isn't usually discussion, and not much gets learned. It's too bad, because a discussion could demonstrate to observers that different people see cartoons in different ways, that they value different aspects. When the people that love the same Warners cartoons from the '40s are in more than one camp about how to feel about a given new cartoon, that implies there is something about the old cartoons that is not present in the new cartoons, a magic that is missing and that needs to be recovered if someone wants to renew the magic. The more lay people discuss, the more intelligent their comments are likely to be, and when it's in a place technicians read, the better informed technicians can be about things they hadn't thought about. If this blog is about training animators to make "good" cartoons in a way that is defined broadly, in a way defined by a general opinion (or even that it is simply widely believed to be) that a cartoon is somehow good, there is much those animators can learn from how lay people have differing value judgments from John on what constitutes what is good, and that technical value or general appreciation by a technical audience is not equivalent to a stamp of approval by a lay audience. Technicians ignore technical understanding at the peril of their craft. Technicians ignore the value judgments of the lay audience at the peril of anyone outside of the celluloid tower giving a damn.

>>I find it amazing that Clampett was only 17 when he started making cartoons. <<

Actually, Jesse, he didn't start making cartoons till he had 7 years of experience, learning the craft from the ground floor up.

He started as an inbetweener, was later an animator and gag man, then became a sort of assistant director, then full-fledged director, then the most influential director of the 1940s.

It's a damn shame that we can't have the system that existed in the Golden Age. All the animation done in house, start as an inbetweener and learn how the craft actually works before you become a writer or director.

We'd still have great cartoons probably if we just went back to common sense production methods.

Nowadays the network studios are so backwards that they think they can just hire someone who knows nothing about how to make cartoons and put him in charge. Then all the actual artists with experience and skill hate his guts.

"Then why, if you ask the average "fan" what the best cartoons are, does he inevitably mention the exact same titles Leonard Maltin cited in "Of Mice and Magic"?"

Well, I can't say for sure, but I'll guess that (IF TRUE, which I doubt) it's because the cartoons Maltin cites as the best are--by and large really good? as in "Coal Black", etc.? I haven't read Maltin in years but I don't recall his tastes being radically different than yours, Steve....so far as you've exressed yourself. He watched a lot of cartoons, probably more than most people, and cared about them, and IIRC loved the rgeat ones by Tex, Bob, Friz and Chuck(and McKimson). He also lambasted the poorer ones. All in all, it's not a bad book, but in any case I don't believe that whether it's "kids" you're talking about or not, that the fans you're referring to really just cite Maltin without bothering to watch the cartoons, or if they have(and it's easier to see the Clampett's etc. than ever before), that their own opinions are shaped by MALTIN, for gods sake. Seems to me that the youth contingent here and elswhere in the world is all too ready to disgree with some guy who wrote a book on cartoons 20 years ago, not blindly say "this is great" just because a middle aged guy on ET says so.

Anyway, your statement and premise is way too broad and presumptuous: the "average fan" "inevitably" mentions this or that? Since when? Is that your scientific analysis? Does that include the members of ASIFA Hollywood? Come on...; )

I remember you saying all that in the Audio Commentary for "Porky's Party". A very nice cartoon. You are right, it is a shame that cartoons today can't be like they use to be. I feel like only you, me and other yong cartoonist that visit this blog can change the cartoon industrie.

>>Why should the audience accept John's value judgment as to what is an appealing cartoon any more than they should accept what some writer or some money man has to say about it?

They shouldn't. That's why I spend a lot of time backing up everything I say and showing tons of examples.

But most people just repeat what they heard somewhere before-like "Friz is good at timing" and accept it as fact, even though when you actually compare his skills to Jones, Clampett and Avery, he is not as good as any of them.

That is not a value judgment. I've studied all of them closely and I explain my opinions with examples.

Anyone who would hold on to established dogmatic beliefs in the face of contrary evidence is not capable of having an opinion.

I will continue to post examples of all this stuff-including Friz' timing next to his superiors' and I will explain the difference in skill levels.I can't do everything in one post or even in a year of posts.

I've been at this stuff for decades now and I'm giving my knowledge and observations and experience away for free as fast as I can-which is a lot faster than if you had to spend 2 decades watching thousands of cartoons, freeze framing them and making your own cartoons (that entertained millions of people), using through trial and error what you think you have learned from the stuff you study.

Opinions are not all equal. Some are pure ignorance. Especially parroted ones.

The audience reacts with its laughs. They aren't required to write about or even understand why they laugh. They watch the cartoon and react according to their "non-technical value judgements" (read: personal tastes).

This particular post isn't a cartoon for the general audience though... It's analysis intended for artists and fans who want to study and understand animation. That requires a functioning brain and some experience.

The best way to convince the general audience that great animation is great entertainment is to give them great animation to watch. No amount of analysis is going to convince them. It's going to take great cartoons on TV and in theaters.

What do ya think about making a cartoon about Bob Clampett finding out that the animation business has turned backwards and retarted and he goes to a network executive's office and the rest of the film turns in to a hole Bugs Bunny or Daffy Duck thing. If you like the idea don't give all the credit to me. Jorge Garrido mentioned on one post about you doing a cartoon that would star Clampett, Just like Ralph Bakshi from "Fire Dogs 2" But I came up with the story. So..... "What do ya think?"

Been really interested where you write on your blog, 'This is where Bob was at his wildest'. How much did Bob as a Director influence the action and animation in a single scene like the horse, and how much of it was the animator giving back to Bob?

Did Bob act it out and say, I want the horse to go nuts and fail around like crazy in the air like this (and do it). Give notes on timing, re-draw things etc?

So I guess I am asking, how much in a single scene, or even in a single drawing are we seeing Bob, and how much is Rod Scribner or Manny Gould or Bob McKimson?

And thanks for your blog - I love these cartoons and it is great to get people talking about them and taking notice of them (informed opions or not!)

I know your not quite that old! I was asking more since you have known and spoken with Bob Clampett, and would guess you would have more an idea as to his style of directing since you got to know the man.

Well I am very glad that Bob got his way, because the animation in his films is fantastic.

Also love to know how things are going with the ideas you posted about the two cats an the cute girl (Peeping Tomcats). Looked a lot of fun!

That horse shoving his face into him self and swapping sides with his arse is quality. I can see influence from this scene in the APC episode "Altruists" when Stimpy is upside down and does something very similar, if a lot more elaborate.

I really couldn't care less about all this who-deserves-to-have-opinions-about-who-and-what thing going on here, I'm just here to enjoy great animation.

I noticed that Bob Clampett did such slogans as "Egh, It's a possibility", "Well now I won't say that", and "Gosh, ain't I a stinka.

He got thsoe from radio slogans. Back then all characters had catch phrases so you could identify who was speaking, since it wasn't a visual medium.

>More professionals and even bloggers should follow that advice. Reviewers with insight are few and far between. They just use bigger words to tell you what they like and don't like, based on the same criteria they use to select ice cream flavors. Since I don't know them personally and have not the same predilections, they are of less value than my friends, who don't pose as experts.

Not all reviewrs are experts, but some are. John is boht, so is Jerry Beck, Steve Schneider, Joe Adamson, etc...

>They should express it at home to their family and friends.Why is their opinion any better than yours?It certainly isn't going to be as informed as the opinions of professionals.

Or on blogs. I assumed you meant porfessional critics. If it's based on research and evidence, then it's worth more. I like to think I'm knowledgable, but not as knowledgable as Jerry or you, but I think my critiques hold up to scrutiny. No, I'm not professional, but if someone wants to write a book about their thoughts about cartoons, and it's well written, even if it's wrong thye shouldn't be criticized for doing it. All I ask is that they back things up, like you.

John K said "But most people just repeat what they heard somewhere before-like "Friz is good at timing" and accept it as fact, even though when you actually compare his skills to Jones, Clampett and Avery, he is not as good as any of them.

That is not a value judgment. I've studied all of them closely and I explain my opinions with examples."

I agree that simply parroting another opinion that the speaker has no basis for agreement with is not a valuable opinion; I'd say it's not even an opinion (the most understandable scenario would involve someone liking one director's cartoons more than another, then taking someone else's observations without critically applying the view, and proceeding to parrot them assuming that the statement is part of what led to their own judgment).

However, it is wrong to say that there is not a value judgment in what you have said in the quoted text. If you were to say "Friz does not time as precisely as Bob" (even here, precise should probably be defined), that might very well be a valid technical appraisal. Providing examples would give that technical appraisal priority over a contradictory technical appraisal that does not provide similar or better proof.

But to say "Friz is good at timing" or "Friz is not good at timing" or "X is better at timing than Y" implies a value judgment about what good timing is (unless you're saying Friz was not meeting his own goals of timing, tho I don't believe you are). Presumably, good timing would be timing that serves some goal in reaching the audience, that being feeding the funny, helping suspension of disbelief, or some other goal. And those other goals are themselves going to be a matter of taste, not to mention that the effect of the timing on the goal itself is going to require speculation; the more individuals that chime in, the better the sample size, but it's always going to be unscientific.

Stephen Worth said "The best way to convince the general audience that great animation is great entertainment is to give them great animation to watch. No amount of analysis is going to convince them. It's going to take great cartoons on TV and in theaters."

For that to be true, the general audience needs to think the cartoon is great, and that is not objective, no matter how much production side thinks they are in the proper place to dictate taste to everyone else. It is perhaps ascertainable (to a degree), but quashing opinions that differ from the opinions of technicians is a perfect way to not ascertain them. There is a significant danger in ignoring the value judgments of what is a good cartoon made by people who are neither technicians nor the relatively small number of people who have chosen to let technicians' opinions be their own by proxy of what makes a good cartoon; that danger being that the general audience will not accept them.

John K said "But most people just repeat what they heard somewhere before-like "Friz is good at timing" and accept it as fact, even though when you actually compare his skills to Jones, Clampett and Avery, he is not as good as any of them.

That is not a value judgment. I've studied all of them closely and I explain my opinions with examples."

I agree that simply parroting another opinion that the speaker has no basis for agreement with is not a valuable opinion; I'd say it's not even an opinion (the most understandable scenario would involve someone liking one director's cartoons more than another, then taking someone else's observations without critically applying the view, and proceeding to parrot them assuming that the statement is part of what led to their own judgment).

However, it is wrong to say that there is not a value judgment in what you have said in the quoted text. If you were to say "Friz does not time as precisely as Bob" (even here, precise should probably be defined), that might very well be a valid technical appraisal. Providing examples would give that technical appraisal priority over a contradictory technical appraisal that does not provide similar or better proof.

But to say "Friz is good at timing" or "Friz is not good at timing" or "X is better at timing than Y" implies a value judgment about what good timing is (unless you're saying Friz was not meeting his own goals of timing, tho I don't believe you are). Presumably, good timing would be timing that serves some goal in reaching the audience, that being feeding the funny, helping suspension of disbelief, or some other goal. And those other goals are themselves going to be a matter of taste, not to mention that the effect of the timing on the goal itself is going to require speculation; the more individuals that chime in, the better the sample size, but it's always going to be unscientific.

Stephen Worth said "The best way to convince the general audience that great animation is great entertainment is to give them great animation to watch. No amount of analysis is going to convince them. It's going to take great cartoons on TV and in theaters."

For that to be true, the general audience needs to think the cartoon is great, and that is not objective, no matter how much production side thinks they are in the proper place to dictate taste to everyone else. It is perhaps ascertainable (to a degree), but quashing opinions that differ from the opinions of technicians is a perfect way to not ascertain them. There is a significant danger in ignoring the value judgments of what is a good cartoon made by people who are neither technicians nor the relatively small number of people who have chosen to let technicians' opinions be their own by proxy of what makes a good cartoon; that danger being that the general audience will not accept them.

Wow. I just realized my feelings toward cartoon critics are actually really apathetic. My last post was me being argumentative for no reason. I really don't have strong feelings toward the issue one way or another.

I tend to be really contrary, it's a big problem for me, and most disturbingly, I've been seeing it in my latest posts alot. I apologize.

>>If you are basing your opinion on one you read in an animation history book-like "Friz was good at music and timing" or "Disney did personality animation" rather than coming to the conclusion on your own just by watching the flims themselves then it's not even an opinion, it's merely blind dogma.

I came to the former conclusion by watching Pigs in A Polka and Corny Concerto. Also, Yankee Doodle Daffy, Slick Hare and Hare Do.

>Or having an opinion when you're still a teenager. That's automatic disqualification.

HAHAHAHAHA!! I'll conCede to that as long as anyone over the age of 50 gets the same treatment. :P:P:P

>The fact is, nobody's opinion is better than anybody else's. Different people have different tastes. It's people being taste pushers that's a problem.

It's this kindof plrualistic ideaolgy that's ruined the world. Thad, come on, someone who thinks a Speedy/Daffy cartoon is better than Coal Black is obviously wrong. Even if they argued their point with examples, their opinion would still be below most people's.

>When Bugs totures some hunter,etc., he dose it because he was wronged first. Bugs attacking Red Hot Rider was pretty much for no reason,this is a characterization of a villian and Bugs is not a villian.

He did it becasue he's a a HECKLER and because it was funny. No other reason is needed.

>The internet is full of "experts". By the screen name alone, you can't tell if you're chatting with a 16 year old kid or one of the "nine old men"

I'm no expert! But I'm 17, same as Thad.

>Heck, even saying that provoked a round of personal insults last week.

I'm sorry I said that aboot your mother, Steve.

>Twenty years from now, some of you are going to remember what a great thing it was to be able to learn from John through this blog. Others of you are going to kick yourself for wasting such a great opportunity.

I'll be the first to say that John's giving us an amzing opportuinty but writing great psots and tehn INTERACTING wiht us in the comments. By debating and disagreeing wiht him, we're encouraging "extra" info.

>Sometimes movie reviewers write a critic about animation movies. Well, they know something about pacing, staging, dialogues, etc. but in some reviews you can tell the guy haven't watched any other cartoon in his life.

I can't STAND those critics. People who say Shrek is better then Toy Stroy or The Incredibles have LOW opinions.

> In my opinion Bugs Bunny is a jerk in almost all of his cartoons.

H'es not a jerk, he's a court jester! Friz said if someone was as cocky as Bugs in real life you wouldn't like him, but that people love cartoon characters like that.

>Yep. Because none of the films back up the conclusions.

To YOU.

>Books are great resources. But you've got to use your brain and watch the films too.Agreed.

>Actually, Jesse, he didn't start making cartoons till he had 7 years of experience, learning the craft from the ground floor up.

That means I got exactly 7 years to get good, then when I turn 24 I'll be even better than Clampett! Yay!

>But most people just repeat what they heard somewhere before-like "Friz is good at timing" and accept it as fact, even though when you actually compare his skills to Jones, Clampett and Avery, he is not as good as any of them.

Thad provided samples! Go to his post called "Friz vs. Clampett timing" and watch CLIPS that compared Friz and Clampett's timing in similar scenes, including one Friz stole from Clampett!

>The audience reacts with its laughs. They aren't required to write about or even understand why they laugh. They watch the cartoon and react according to their "non-technical value judgements" (read: personal tastes).

Well then Friz must be better than Clampett. In that same post I mentioed above, Thad talks about how Friz's cartoons always bring the house down but nobody laughed at Clampett's cartoons! Must have been a retarded audience, but Reg Harrt then said that excellence is always met with awed silence. So, that view, Steve, agrees with Thad's but says Friz was better, while Reg's contradicts your's but says Clampett was better.

Me, I say it depends on how smart the audience is. I love Friz, but Clampett's cartoons were all WAY better.

Uggh, the comments of this thread give me a headache. We've devolved into debates about semantics and what the difference is between "value judgemetns" and "non technical analysys." My head hurts. Although this post is also John K GOLD! He gave so many damn comments! Thanks, John!

Bugs isn't a villian in "Buckaroo Bugs", he's only pretenting to be a villian. He has two roles in this cartoon; himself and "the Masked Marauder" (okay, three if you count the Western Union man). He doesn't actually rob the stagecoach, he hides behide a rock and imitates a robbery.

Granted, he's playacting in order to have fun heckling a boob. That may not seem so nice, but Red Hot Ryder has been hired for a minor offense -- stealing carrots from the victory garden (in other words, hunting down someone who is only trying to survive). Usually in comedy the audiences' sympathies are on the side of the anarchist -- such as Randall P. MacMurphy over Nurse Ratchett or Delta House over Dean Wormer, for instance. The authority figure is usually the fool, and people delight in seeing him outwitted by an outcast type, such as the Little Tramp or Groucho Marx.

The cartoon is also in the tradition of vaudeville that pairs a patsy with a slick, fast talking conman. Usually, audiences don't react to a traditional morality in these types of comedy.

>>No you didn't.All those cartoons are terrible.You heard that Friz was good at timing like thousands of other fans did and you blindly accept it.Or..you really do like slow plodding stuff that doesn't move very much.<<

Nope, I read it in a book and then watched the cartoons to see if it was true and came to a conclusion myself. Friz's action matched the on screen action much closer. And I don't even like Pigs In a Polka that much, Corny has way bettr animation and it actually has gags, but Pigs had nothing to it except timing.

> Whoops!Corny Concerto is a fine cartoon. Much better musical timing than the Friz'Good catch!

Could it be you were typing what you were REALLY thinking? Nyah-ha-ha! Nyah-ha-ha!

>>Or..you really do like slow plodding stuff that doesn't move very much.

Yes, John, THAT'S what I meant.

I'm gonna try an experiment, when I get my LT vol. 2 back from my friend Dallin I'll watch both cartoons on mute and see if the onscreen actions indicate the song. If I tap on a table alongside Bug's ballet kicks and hops will I be able to hear the rhythm of the cartoon? I'm of course referring to duh-duh-duh-DUH-DUH, duh-DUH, duh-DUH. (That's actually Daffy Duck's half)

Here's another experiment. Compare acting in Clampett's cartoons and Disney's cartoons by taping yourself acting exactly like the cahracter. Copy their movements and expressions EXACTLY, and you'll find that Disney's acting is much worse. Disney didn't cartoon acting, he advanced the technical skill of bad cartoon acting. Today I fished out my old VHS copy of Disney's Snow White (not taht great of a movie) and studied the beardless retarded one's movements. John was absolutely right, it's really un-natural. I prefer the boring realistic humans even though Thad says the rotoscoping dates the movie.

>>All those cartoons are terrible.

"DJ, What the hhhhhhheeck?"

Is there even one Friz cartoon you like? ONE? (I bet it's "Dough For The Do-do" which is really Clampett's)

Here's what Clampett said regarding Mike Barrier's comment that Bugs is too aggresive in Buckaroo Bugs:

"Well, the two cartoons you mention, Mike, were made at the peak of World War II. Bugs Bunny has been loved for over a quarter of a century now, but he has never been loved the way he was during those war years. Just as America whistled the tune from Disney's Three Little Pigs, "Who's afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?," in the dark days of the Depression, so, Bugs Bunny was a symbol of America's resistance to Hitler and the fascist powers. In both instances, we were in a battle for our lives, and it is most difficult now to comprehend the tremendous emotional impact Bugs Bunny exerted on the audience then. You must try to recapture the mood of a people who had seen the enemy murder millions of innocent people in gas ovens, blitzkrieg defenseless civilians, sink our fleet in a sneak attack, and threaten our very existence.

Psychologists found that the public subconsciously identified the stupid little man with the gun and his counterparts with Hitler, and strongly identified the rabbit—unarmed except for his wits and will to win—with themselves. They further advised that justification was already established and that the sooner and more often that the audience's alter-ego (Bugs) could get back at the Hitler symbol, the greater the therapy.

In fact, Mike, it was during those war years, from Pearl Harbor to January of 1945, that the Bugs Bunny cartoons, all of which were made by the other two directors and myself, passed Disney and MGM for the first time to become the No.1 short subject. And in 1944 the studio chose my Bugs Bunny Falling Hare as their entry for the Oscar race. [Falling Hare was not actually nominated for an Oscar, however. MB]

But, of course, Mike, when the war ended, we all looked upon any overt aggressiveness in an entirely different light."

If you disagree with Bob Clmapett, you are wrong. It's a scientifically proven fact.

John, You won't believe that I was just studying this same sequence TODAY when I also discovered your post. I've been looking for information on who animated the horse characters in Clampett's "Buckaroo Bugs" and "Wagon Heels". I'm doing a study of animated horse characters, and I find the horses in these cartoons wonderfully, anthropomorphically comic and yet drawn with an obvious knowledge of horse anatomy (the fingers excepted!) These animators were certainly as skilled draftsmen as any Disney animator.